Re: Pipe Operator v2

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Sara Golemon wrote: > > However, the introduction discusses fluent chained methods of objects, and > > states " This RFC aims to improve code readability by bringing fluent > > expressions to functional and OOP libraries not originally designed for the > > task." The examples, however, all seem to be centered around procedural > > calls. (A static method call is the same thing as a procedural function > > call in this respect.) When dealing with methods on an object, it seems it > > wouldn't offer much. > > > In this context, I'd argue instance method calls aren't much different > from static method calls either, but I wanted to avoid too many > abstract/contrived examples. > > I suppose one might do something like: > > return $this->loadConfig() > |> $arg->useConfig($$) > |> $this->loadUser($$) > |> array_merge($$, $this->userDefaults); > > But the PSR7 example is already contrived as it is. > > > This other recent discussion/proposal for a "Cascade" operator seems like it > > would handle the OOP/method case much better: > > > > http://news.php.net/php.internals/94466 > > > > Note: I am not suggesting one is a substitute for the other; rather, that > > they are complementary by addressing different parts of the problem space, > > and the Pipe RFC should likely not emphasize OOP usage potential as I see > > not a great deal there. I am still in favor of it, but let's not over-state > > its use cases. > > > Fair enough. They certainly complement one another and I wouldn't > argue either is a one-job-fits-all solution. I wasn't trying to > emphasize OOP usage so much as include it as applicable. I think we > might actually be agreeing in principle even if we're diverging in our > word choices. :) I agree. I'm entirely on board with the feature; more just critiquing the RFC intro text, which mentions OOP fluency as a use case, which I think is an over-reach. It's a useful enough feature even without talking about that, and it seems we agree that the syntax when used with methods is a bit awkward. > P.S. - I'm totes going to make that a secondary voting choice now. > Name the token, 50% majority wins. :-) --Larry Garfield